GDP 10b PDF

BANK AND CHANNEL PROTECTIVE LINING
DESIGN PROCEDURES
GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN PROCEDURE

GDP-10
Revision #3
AUGUST 2015
GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN PROCEDURE:
BANK AND CHANNEL PROTECTIVE LINING DESIGN PROCEDURES
GDP-10
Revision #3
STATE OF NEW YORK

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING BUREAU
AUGUST 2015
EB 15-025 Page 1 of 59
ABSTRACT
This design manual was prepared to provide procedures and guidelines for the design of bank
and channel protective linings. The objective of the manual is to achieve adequate protection
against detrimental erosion by the most economical means. Data for design analyses have been
assembled from selected sources for the convenience of the designer. Soil properties are also a
factor in erosion, and the effects of soil type on the requirements for protection are discussed.
Various types of bank and channel protection are described along with their limitations and
advantages as determined from construction experience and field performance.
EB 15-025 Page 2 of 59
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract
1. Introduction ..............................................................................................................................5
1.1 Purpose of erosion-resistant design..............................................................5
1.2 Scope of manual ...........................................................................................5
2. Conditions Leading to Erosion ................................................................................................6
2.1 General .........................................................................................................6
2.2 Natural meanders or man-made bends in the alignment of a channel .........6
2.3 Constrictions in a channel ............................................................................6
2.4 Changes in the roughness of the channel boundaries...................................8
2.5 Changes in the slope of a channel bottom....................................................8
2.6 Abrupt changes in the width of a channel ....................................................8
2.7 Junctions of channels ...................................................................................8
2.8 Excavation in a stream channel....................................................................8
2.9 Increased flow quantity ................................................................................9
2.10 Compound problems ....................................................................................9
2.11 Summary ......................................................................................................9
3. Information Required For Protective Lining Design .............................................................11
3.1 Flow quantity or velocity ...........................................................................11
3.2 Channel geometry ......................................................................................11
3.3 Erodibility of foundation soils ...................................................................11
3.4 Possibility of non-uniform settlement ........................................................11
3.5 Wave height ...............................................................................................11
3.6 Ice action ....................................................................................................12
3.7 Relative costs of lining types .....................................................................12
4. Selection of Lining Type ........................................................................................................13
4.1 General considerations ...............................................................................13
4.2 Economic considerations ...........................................................................13
5. Design of Protective Linings..................................................................................................16
5.1 Objectives ..................................................................................................16
5.2 Use of design charts ...................................................................................16
5.3 Evaluation of various lining types .............................................................29
5.3.1 Grass linings...............................................................................................29
5.3.2 Dumped Stone linings ................................................................................32
5.3.3 Paved or grouted linings ............................................................................36
5.3.4 Dry rip-rap and bagged concrete ................................................................38
5.3.5 Gabions ......................................................................................................38
5.3.6 Fabriform ...................................................................................................41
5.3.7 Soil cement.................................................................................................41
5.3.8 Closed pipe drains ......................................................................................41
EB 15-025 Page 3 of 59
5.4 Required extent of linings ..........................................................................43
5.4.1 Stream channel linings ...............................................................................43
5.4.2 Small roadside drainage channels ..............................................................48
5.5 Protection against wave action ...................................................................48
6. Protection at Culvert and Paved Channel Outlets ..................................................................50
6.1 Need for protection ....................................................................................50
6.2 Design of dumped stone protective aprons ................................................50
6.3 Other types of protection............................................................................53
7. Filter or Bedding Layers ........................................................................................................55
7.1 The need for filter or bedding layers ..........................................................55
7.2 Granular filter or bedding material ............................................................56
7.3 Geotextile bedding .....................................................................................56
References ......................................................................................................................................58
Appendix ........................................................................................................................................59
A Sample Problems (US Customary Units)................................................ A-1
B Sample Problems (International System of Units) ...................................B-1
EB 15-025 Page 4 of 59
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose of erosion-resistant design

In preparing the design of a highway project, the engineer usually has to design channels to carry
water. Such channels range from small roadside drainage ditches or gutters to major river
relocations. In addition, highway embankments and structures often have to be located in or
adjacent to existing rivers, streams, lakes, reservoirs or other bodies of water.
A newly constructed channel or a natural channel modified by man will generally experience
accelerated erosion of the banks and scour of the bottom at some locations, while sediments will
be deposited at others. A channel may be modified by changing its width or alignment, or by
construction in or adjacent to the channel which will alter the natural flow boundaries at any flow
stage. Failure to consider in design the erosive power of water may have the following adverse
consequences:
1) Damage to or destruction of the facility.
2) Damage to adjacent property.
3) Pollution of surface waters by eroded soils.
In order to achieve a successful design, the engineer not only has to compute the design flow and
provide adequate channel capacity to carry this flow, but must also:
1) Recognize conditions that are conducive to erosion.
2) Eliminate or alleviate erosive conditions and/or provide adequate protection
against significant erosion damage to the transportation facility or adjacent
property.
1. 2 Scope of manual
This manual is intended to provide the designer with guidelines for erosion-resistant design. For
this purpose, the manual contains the following information:
1) A description of causes of erosion and methods of avoiding it.

2) A description of commonly used types of protective linings.
3) Information gathered by NYSDOT and other agencies, for the selection of an
appropriate type of protective lining.
This manual is not a reference on other aspects of drainage design, such as hydraulics, hydrology
and culvert design. A few charts dealing with open channel flow have been assembled from other
sources for the designer's convenience.
Also outside the scope of this manual is the design of structure foundations to prevent damage by
scour.
After examination of this manual, some designers may be disappointed that stream and channel
bank protection design cannot be reduced entirely to a numerical process. However, the
interaction of flowing water with soil and rock particles in a practical situation is so complex that
this is not possible. The most adequate and economic solution to any erosion or scour problem
can only be arrived at by a combination of analysis, experience and good judgment. The manual
attempts to include as many considerations as possible to supplement the latter two factors in the
decision process.
EB 15-025 Page 5 of 59
2. CONDITIONS LEADING TO EROSION
2.1 General
Flowing water exerts a force, proportional to the square of its velocity, on objects in its path. The
force on an object in a stream will increase by a factor of four if the water velocity is doubled.
Erosion takes place when the water force exceeds the forces tending to keep a soil or rock
particle in its position. In channels with steep grades or steep side slopes, the tendency of soil or
rock particles to move down the slope as a consequence of gravity reduces the magnitude of
water force necessary to cause movement.
The likelihood and severity of erosion is greatly influenced by soil type. Other factors remaining
constant, the erosion resistance of a soil increases with increasing grain size, increasing plasticity
and increasing relative density.
Certain conditions of channel geometry and/or roughness increase flow velocities or change the
direction of flow so as to favor the occurrence of erosion. The most common of these conditions
and methods of avoiding them are described in subsequent sections. These problems can occur in
all types of channels from small roadside drainage ditches or gutters to major streams and rivers.
However, some conditions will be more common in smaller, some in larger channels.
2.2 Natural meanders or man-made bends in the alignment of a channel.

Erosion and scour take place, unless adequate protection is provided, on the outside of meanders
or bends, where the flow impinges on the bank (Fig. 1). In the case of narrow man-made
channels carrying high-speed flows, the stream of water flowing at a high velocity toward the
outside of a bend may be deflected against the inside bank and cause erosion there also (Fig. 2).
In order to limit erosion, sharp bends should be avoided when relocating streams or rivers, or
designing roadside drainage channels, if at all possible. If erosion of the outside bank in a new or
existing bend will result in an undesirable condition, adequate protection should be provided.
2.3 Constrictions in a channel

Constrictions or contractions may be the result of the presence of highway embankments, bridge
abutments or bridge piers located within or adjacent to the channel, thereby constricting it
laterally (Fig. 2). A protective lining placed on the bottom of an erodible channel constricts it
vertically, as may a bridge superstructure where clearance is inadequate at flood flows. A culvert
may constrict a channel both laterally and vertically.
The flow velocity is increased at constrictions, resulting in erosion of the banks and scour of the
bottom both above and below the constriction, unless protection is provided. In the case of a
bridge having; a pier in the channel of a narrow stream, the resulting scour may endanger the
approach embankments and even cause movement of the abutments toward the stream. If this type
of situation cannot be avoided by eliminating the pier or locating it outside the channel limits, scour
should be anticipated and the approach embankments protected by a properly designed lining. The
bridge itself, of course, should be supported on a foundation designed taking scour into account.
EB 15-025 Page 6 of 59
FIG. 1 EROSION, AND ULTIMATELY A SLOPE FAILURE, OF THE
OUTSIDE BANK OF A MEANDER
FIG. 2 CHANNEL BEND IN BACKGROUND DEFLECTS FLOW TOWARDS

BRIDGE ABUTMENT AND UNDERMINES FOOTING.
EB 15-025 Page 7 of 59
2.4 Changes in the roughness of the channel boundaries
If a relatively smooth type of bank protection is placed in a stream at a location where the natural
banks are rough, the flow is accelerated. As a result, the sediment-carrying capacity of the stream is
increased and it scours its bed. At the point where the smooth bank protection ends, the flow slows
down and the stream deposits much of its bed load. Since its depth is decreased, the stream tends to
erode its banks in order to maintain the same volume of flow. Consequently, in order not to upset
the regimen of the stream, an attempt should be made to utilize bank protection having a roughness
similar to that of the natural streambanks.
Another example of scour resulting from a change in the roughness of a channel is often found at
the downstream end of paved channels. Because of a smooth lining, the velocity of water flow will
increase without an increase in bed load. As a result, the water will often erode a scour hole at the
downstream end of the paved channel. This hole may gradually work its way back, undermining the
channel lining. In order to prevent scour, outlet protection should be provided in accordance with
the recommendations of this manual.
2.5 Changes in the slope of a channel bottom

When streams are relocated, they are often straightened by cutting across meanders. The resulting
increase in gradient leads to a higher velocity in the straightened channel. As a result, scour is likely
to occur within and upstream, of the relocation. The banks of the stream may be eroded
immediately downstream of the straightened section. In some cases erosion and scour within and
outside the relocation and the amount of required protective material have been reduced by
constructing the stream relocation as a meandering channel, geometrically similar and equal in
length to the abandoned channel. Another method of controlling scour and erosion is by means of
check dams constructed across the stream at intervals (Fig. 3). The slope between adjacent check
dams is kept equal to the natural slope of the stream, with the additional gradient resulting from the
straightening of the stream compensated for by a vertical drop at each check dam.
2.6 Abrupt changes in the width of a channel

Sudden changes in the width of a channel, such as occur at constrictions if a gradual transition is
not provided, set up eddy flows that may erode unprotected banks. In order to prevent erosion
damage, changes in channel width should be made gradual or an adequate protective lining
provided. Spur dikes extending upstream and downstream from bridge approach embankments
constitute one method of eliminating or reducing: erosion at the upstream and downstream slopes
of the embankments.
2.7 Junctions of channels

If the angle between the channels at a junction is excessive, the flow from one channel may
impinge on the opposite bank of the other, causing erosion, Additional protection, as in meanders
or bends, should be provided at such locations. This additional protection should be continued
well below the point of the junction.
2.8 Excavations in a stream channel

Borrow for highway construction is occasionally- obtained from the bottom of a stream channel.
The hole resulting from the excavation for this or some other purpose may cause scour both
upstream and downstream. Scour upstream of the hole results from the tendency of the flow to
flatten the upstream excavation slope. Sediment carried by the stream is trapped in the hole. The
capacity of the stream to erode is thereby increased and it may scour the bottom of its channel
downstream (see Ref. 4, p.10-11).
EB 15-025 Page 8 of 59
2.9 Increased flow quantity
Intensified runoff and/or diversion of adjacent water courses may increase the flow and, thereby,
the velocity of water in a channel. Consequently, a natural channel that has been stable for a long
time may start eroding because of changes resulting from construction. The procedures of this
manual can be used to estimate the capacity of the channel to carry additional flow without
erosion, and to select the proper type of channel lining where required.
2.10 Compound problems

More than one condition may be present at the same location, thereby compounding the problem.
Examples of this are:
1) The presence of a bridge pier in the bend of a narrow stream.
2) A straightened channel provided with a smooth protective lining.
A common example of a compound problem is a culvert outlet. Erosion may take place at a
culvert outlet both because of increased flow velocity resulting from the constricting action of the
culvert and its smooth lining, and also on account of eddy currents set up at the transition from
culvert to open channel.
2.11 Summary
If the above conditions cannot be eliminated in the design of the highway and if erodible soils are
present, protection should be provided against erosion. Generally, this protection will consist of a
protective lining composed of erosion-resistant material. The subsequent sections of this manual
will describe various types of linings and lining design procedures.
Under certain conditions, it is possible to regulate the depth and width of a stream channel and to
set the location of the banks by controlling the erosion and deposition in the stream through the
use of check dams (Fig. 3) and groins (Fig. 4). The design of groins and check dams, however, is
outside the scope of this manual.
EB 15-025 Page 9 of 59
FIG. 3 CHECK DAMS IN A STREAM RELOCATION
FIG. 4 USE OF GROINS TO CONTROL FLOW AND EROSION IN A RIVER
EB 15-025 Page 10 of 59
3. INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR PROTECTIVE LINING DESIGN
3.1 Flow quantity or velocity

Normally, protective linings should be designed on the basis of the flow quantity or average flow
velocity occurring with such a frequency that the risk of failure of the protection and damage to
the protected facility will be acceptable. Not less than a 20-year design storm or flood should be
used for linings, even where damage will not result in interruption of highway traffic or have
other major effects.
The U. S. Geologic Survey, Water Resources Division, has accumulated data on the discharge
and velocity characteristics of many waterways throughout New York State. They can provide
this information for existing streams and perform analyses of the change in velocity and flow
characteristics for channel relocations. This is a cooperative program with the New York State
Department of Transportation and all requests for analyses of this type should be directed to the
Deputy Chief Engineer (Structures). The Office of Structures is the liaison between the
Department and the U. S. Geologic Survey in this matter.
The flow in smaller streams and roadside drainage channels should be computed by hydrologic
methods. Selection of a protective lining should not be based on a velocity measured by means of
a current meter.
3.2 Channel geometry

In existing streams the designer can determine the channel geometry--depth, gradient, side
slopes, curvature, junctions, and constrictions--from field survey data. In new channels the
designer himself will set the geometry of the channel.
3.3 Erodibility of foundation soils

The susceptibility of soils to erosion varies within wide limits. As a result of glacial action, the
soils in New York State are extremely variable and soils with very high and very low erosion
resistance can occur within a short distance on the same project. The Regional Geotechnical
Engineer should be contacted for information regarding the erosion resistance of soils at specific
locations. He may utilize information from subsurface explorations, apply his knowledge of the
properties and extent of different depositional soils units, and evaluate past erosion problems in
the particular soil type. Based on the above data, he will be able to point out areas of specific soil
types on a project and indicate the relative susceptibility to erosion of each soil type.
3.4 Possibility of non-uniform settlement

Non-uniform settlement as a result of soft foundation soils can lead to cracking of paved or
grouted linings and to undesirable movements of individual particles of dry rip-rap. The presence or
absence of such soils should be ascertained from the Regional Geotechnical Engineer.
3.5 Wave height

In wide rivers, lakes, reservoirs, and the ocean, all or most of the erosion by water results from
wave action. For inland bodies of water, wave height can be estimated from information given in
this manual if the wind velocity and fetch are known. Wind velocities and directions can be
determined from observations made at the nearest weather station operated by the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration of the U. S. Department of Commerce. The fetch can be scaled
from a plan sheet or from a map.
EB 15-025 Page 11 of 59
The design of protection against ocean waves is not covered by this manual and should be based on
local experience.
3.6 Ice action

An idea of the severity of ice action at a site may be obtained from the known climatic conditions of
the area supplemented by information obtained from persons familiar with local conditions
3.7 Relative costs of lining types

The relative costs of various types of linings can be ascertained from an analysis of bid prices on
previous projects in the area. The need for maintenance and the anticipated cost of maintenance
should be considered when performing an economic comparison of lining types.
EB 15-025 Page 12 of 59
4. SELECTION OF LINING TYPE
4.1 General considerations

The selection of a lining type includes the evaluation of the erosion resistance of the lining
material, its anticipated long-term performance under conditions peculiar to the proposed
location of the lining, economic factors and aesthetic considerations.
A material can derive resistance to erosion from several sources:

1) The individual particles may have sufficient weight so that the forces exerted by
flowing water cannot overcome the normal and frictional forces tending to hold the
particles in place. This is the case with dumped stone linings
2) Cohesion between particles may be greater than the disruptive force of flowing water.
The cohesive action of plant roots holding soil particles together prevents the erosion
of channels having a lining of well-established grass or other vegetation.
3) Smaller forces are exerted by water on smooth linings than on rough linings. Paved
linings derive their erosion resistance both from the cohesiveness of the paving
material and from the smoothness of the lining.
Quantitative methods of selecting a lining that will have adequate erosion resistance are
presented in this manual for grass and dumped stone linings only. The performance of
individually placed stone rip-rap, bagged concrete and paved linings is considered to be
unpredictable since it depends to a great extent on local defects that may develop as a result of
cracking, settlement, or ice action. Under ideal conditions, these linings are highly erosion
resistant. However, a local defect may lead to a progressive failure of the entire lining in a
relatively short time.
4.2 Economic considerations

A number of economic factors will affect the selection of a lining type for a particular project.
The most important factors that should be considered are:
1). Cost of material.
a). Possibility of obtaining material of the required size and quality on site.
b). Distance to other sources.
2). Cost of labor.
a). Amount of labor necessary for installation.
b). Local wage rates.
3). Anticipated need for cost of maintenance.
EB 15-025 Page 13 of 59
The Weighted Average Bid Prices can be used to obtain a rough idea of the relative costs of
various linings. However, the cost of a particular lining on a specific project may differ
considerably from the previous year's average bid price in that Region. Some of the reasons for
such a difference are:
1) The materials for some lining types may be available on a project as part of the
required excavation.
2) The availability of certain materials may vary between different areas of the Region.
3) The unit bid price will be higher if only a small quantity of the material is in the
contract than if a large quantity is involved.
4) Inflation.
The gradation of stone filling (fine), stone filling (light), and bedding material have been
designed so as to be obtainable from rock cuts or stone quarries with a minimum of processing.
Stone filling is an especially economical material if it can be obtained within the limits of the
project (on site). The suitability of the excavated rock for stone filling items should be evaluated
in design by the Regional Geotechnical Engineer or a Departmental Engineering Geologist.
Stone filling items can be obtained from the following potential sources:
1) On-site rock cuts.

Stone Filling Item Product
Stone Filling (Fine) As blasted, large stone removed.
Stone Filling (Light) As blasted, large stone removed.
Stone Filling (Medium) Selected coarse material.
Stone Filling (Heavy) Selected coarse material.
2) Off-site quarries.
Stone Filling (Fine) Run of crusher, 8 in. (200 mm) top size.
Stone Filling (Light) As blasted, large stone removed.
Stone Filling (Medium) Selected coarse material.
Stone Filling (Heavy) Selected coarse material.
Bedding Material Run of crusher, 4 in. (100 mm) top size.
3) Gravel pit scalpings.

Stone Filling (Fine) Likely source.
Stone Filling (Light) Possible source.
EB 15-025 Page 14 of 59
4) Stone walls.
Stone Filling (Light) Possible source.
5) Other possible sources.

Boulders in glacial till and mine or tunnel spoil.
EB 15-025 Page 15 of 59
5. DESIGN OF PROTECTIVE LININGS
5.1 Objectives
The function of protective linings is to prevent the erosion of underlying materials if the erosive
condition cannot be eliminated. In order to perform this function, the lining has to be designed
and constructed so as to:
1) be able to resist the forces exerted by the water on the lining,
2) have an adequate extent along the water course so that erosion adjacent to the lining
will not cause its failure by undermining, and
3) prevent the washing out of underlying materials through openings in the lining.
The long-term performance of the lining under the effects of settlement, ice action and time-
related deterioration should also be considered when appropriate.
A lining composed of stone filling (medium or heavy) and located adjacent to a highway may
constitute a hazard to traffic. The Department's current policy in regard to potentially dangerous
fixed objects should be followed.
The design data and procedures presented in this manual are based, for the most part, on reduced-
scale model tests supplemented by a limited number of full scale tests and field observations, all
made by other agencies (see Refs. 1 through 9). It is suggested that general experiences with
protective linings and the recommendations in this manual be documented and forwarded to
Deputy Chief Engineer (Design). In this way, the entire Department will benefit from such
experiences and improvement of design methods will be made possible.
Design data and procedures are provided in this chapter for grass and dumped stone linings only.
However, recommendations intended to provide optimum results when it is decided to use
another type of lining have also been included.
5.2 Use of design charts

Figures 6 through 11 consist of charts to be used in selecting the appropriate lining type for
known or assumed flow conditions and channel geometry. Figure 5 defines some of the
nomenclature used in these charts.
The velocity referred to in Figures 6 and 7 is the mean or average velocity of water flowing in the
channel, that is, the flow quantity divided by the cross-sectional area of flow. The shape of the
curves results from the fact that, as the channel depth increases, the ratio of the velocity at the
channel boundaries to the average velocity decreases. The maximum permissible flow velocity
immediately adjacent to the lining is given by the horizontal segments of the curves intersecting
the vertical axis.
The maximum allowable flow velocity for a given stone size depends also on the flow conditions
(uniform, gradually varying or rapidly varying). These are determined by the curvature of the
channel alignment and the presence of obstructions in the channel. Information is insufficient
regarding the performance of grass linings under various flow conditions. It is recommended that
added protection in the form of stone filling be provided at bends and junctions in grass-lined
channels.
EB 15-025 Page 16 of 59
FIG. 5 DEFINITIONS OF TERMS RELATING TO CHANNEL
GEOMETRY
EB 15-025 Page 17 of 59
25
Maximum Allowable Average Flow Velocity (ft/sec)
20 Stone Filling
(Heavy)
Stone Filling
15 (Medium)
Stone Filling
(Light)
10
Stone Filling
(Fine)
Grass *
5
Grass **
0
0 4 8 12 16 20
Maximum Depth of Flow (feet)
Legend and Notes
Uniform flow - straight or mildly curving reach

(curve radius / channel width > 30).
Gradually varying flow - moderate bend curvature
(30 > curve radius / channel width > 10).
Rapidly varying flow - sharp bend curvature (curve
radius / channel width < 10) or presence of bridge
piers or abutments in channel.
* Grass on well-graded or cohesive soil.
** Grass on uniform sand or other easily erodible soil.
Note: Grass linings are not to be used where they will be submerged for
extended periods of time.
FIG. 6 PROTECTIVE LININGS FOR CHANNEL BOTTOMS AND FOR SIDE

SLOPES FLATTER THAN 1V ON 3H IN CHANNELS WITH GRADES
OF LESS THAN 10% (ADAPTED FROM REFS. 2 AND 3)
EB 15-025 Page 18 of 59
25
Maximum Allowable Average Flow Velocity (ft/sec)
20
Stone Filling
(Heavy)
15
Stone Filling
(Medium)
10 Stone Filling
(Light)
Stone Filling
(Fine)
5 Grass *
Grass **
0
0 4 8 12 16 20
Maximum Depth of Flow (feet)
Legend and Notes
Uniform flow - straight or mildly curving reach

(curve radius / channel width > 30).
Gradually varying flow - moderate bend curvature
(30 > curve radius / channel width > 10).
Rapidly varying flow - sharp bend curvature (curve
radius / channel width < 10) or presence of bridge
piers or abutments in channel.
* Grass on well-graded or cohesive soil.
** Grass on uniform sand or other easily erodible soil.
Note: Grass linings are not to be used where they will be submerged for
extended periods of time.
FIG. 7 PROTECTIVE LININGS FOR SIDE SLOPES EQUAL TO OR

STEEPER THAN 1V ON 3H IN CHANNELS WITH GRADES OF LESS
THAN 10% (ADAPTED FROM REFS. 2 AND 3)
EB 15-025 Page 19 of 59
FIG. 8 PROTECTIVE LININGS FOR TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNELS WITH
GRADES 10%
EB 15-025 Page 20 of 59
FIG. 9 PROTECTIVE LININGS FOR TRIANGULAR CHANNELS WITH
GRADES 10% AND SIDE SLOPES = 1V ON 2H
EB 15-025 Page 21 of 59
GRADES 10% AND SIDE SLOPES = 1V ON 4H
EB 15-025 Page 22 of 59
GRADES 10% AND SIDE SLOPES 1V ON 8H
EB 15-025 Page 23 of 59
In the case of channels with grades of 10% or steeper (Figures 8, 9, 10 and 11), the flow
conditions are highly turbulent throughout, and the effect of channel curvature on stone size can
be neglected.
The relationship between maximum channel depth and the allowable average flow velocity
represented by the curves shown in Figures 6 and 7 is valid for roughly triangular to trapezoidal
channel cross-sections without pronounced breaks in the slope going from main channel to flood
plain. If the flood plain is flat, compared to the inclination of the banks of the main channel, the
velocity distribution will be considerably different than that on which Figures 6 and 7 are based.
In this case, the channel cross-sectional area should be divided into separate main channel and
flood plain areas by imaginary vertical lines. The average flow quantity and velocity for each area
can be computed knowing the total flow and the slope (S) for the entire stream and estimating
Manning's n, and hydraulic radius (R) for each area separately.
Protection for a location subject to the high velocity main channel flow should then be selected
from Figures 6 and 7 using the average velocity in the main channel. At locations well back on
the flood plain, the type of protection can be selected based on the average velocity and the
maximum depth in the flood plain section. Judgment may have to be used to decide which of
these two cases is applicable.
Other considerations which influence the selection of a lining are discussed for various common
lining types subsequently. A chart relating the dimensions of theoretical stone shapes to their
weight is plotted in Figure 12 as an aid in evaluating the particle size distribution of stone filling
and rip-rap materials. Figures 13, 14 and 15 are included to facilitate the design of small rounded
triangular channels. For a known channel flow or discharge and a known channel slope or grade,
the depth and velocity of flow in the channel can be found. It should be noted that the discharge
and velocity in these figures is multiplied by the coefficient of roughness (Manning's n) of the
channel. Thus, these figures can be used regardless of the type of channel lining. Since the
coefficient of roughness in grass lined channels is not constant, a trial and error procedure using
Figures 13, 14 and 15 in conjunction with Figure 16 is necessary when computing the flow
velocity in a grass lined channel. The Appendix contains examples of this procedure.
EB 15-025 Page 24 of 59
FIG. 12 STONE FILLING WEIGHT-SIZE CONVERSION CHART
EB 15-025 Page 25 of 59
FIG. 13 CHANNEL CHART (FROM DEPT. OF HIGHWAYS, STATE OF OHIO, MANUAL OF LOCATION
AND DESIGN)
EB 15-025 Page 26 of 59
AND DESIGN)
EB 15-025 Page 27 of 59
AND DESIGN)
EB 15-025 Page 28 of 59
5.3 Evaluation of various lining types
5.3.1 Grass linings
Grass linings are suitable for applications where they will be exposed to periodic, relatively slow
flow of water. They are commonly used in small roadside drainage channels carrying water
intermittently, on the upper parts of the banks of larger channels, and in the emergency spillways
of small dams (Fig. 18).
This type of lining has a pleasing appearance, is economical and is not subject to damage as a
result of undermining or settlement of the supporting soils. A considerable length of time is
required to establish an adequate grass cover starting from seed. Jute mesh and similar temporary
protective materials provide only a minimum of protection against erosion (Fig. 19). Drainage
channels constructed of sod, held in place with pins or stakes, are least likely to be eroded during
the early post-construction phase and are recommended for use in:
1) easily erodible soils,
2) channels with a design flow near the maximum permissible for a grass lining, and
3) locations where the establishment of a grass cover would require an excessive length
of time.
The coefficient of roughness (Mannings n) of grass-lined channels varies with the grade and the
hydraulic radius of the channel as shown in Figures 16 and 17. In addition, Figure 16 can be used
to solve for the flow velocity in a grass-lined channel for known or assumed values of grade and
hydraulic radius.
The limiting conditions of flow and channel geometry for the use of grass linings are presented in
graph form in Figures 6 through 11. As indicated in these graphs, the erosion resistance of grass
lining is greater on a well-graded or cohesive foundation soil, than on a uniform sand or other
material known to be easily erodible. In order to prevent deposition of sediment, the grade of
channels fully lined with grass should not be less than 0.5 percent.
A grass lining cannot be used in channels carrying water for extended periods of time.
Consequently, if the soil and flow conditions are such that an unlined channel would be subject
to erosion, some other type of lining should be used.
As for vegetation other than grass, cuttings of basket willow have been planted on the banks of
relocated streams in various Regions to check erosion and have generally performed well. The
Regional Landscape Architect should be contacted for detailed information regarding the seeding
or planting of grass or other vegetation, and its suitability for the conditions that it will be
exposed to.
EB 15-025 Page 29 of 59
FIG. 16 SOLUTION OF THE MANNING FORMULA FOR GRASS -LINED
CHANNELS RETARDANCE CLASS D (FROM HANDBOOK OF
CHANNEL DESIGN FOR SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION,
SCS-TP-61, REVISED 1954)
EB 15-025 Page 30 of 59
FIG. 17 MANNINGS n FOR GRASS LINED CHANNELS, RETARDANCE CLASS D
EB 15-025 Page 31 of 59
5.3.2 Dumped stone linings
Dumped stone linings are considered to include all stone linings dumped or individually placed
in such a manner that the stones resting on the foundation soil or bedding layer, support other
stones (Fig. 20 and 21). As a result, the lining consists of more than a single layer of stones, and
the underlying material is not exposed if settlement takes place or individual stones are displaced
by ice action. An additional advantage of this lining, under certain conditions, is its coarse
surface texture which dissipates the energy of water flowing over it, thus reducing its velocity.
There is a benefit in having a well-graded stone as lining material, with individual stones ranging
from a size equal to the thickness of the lining down to one-inch spalls. This type of material
forms its own filter that prevents the underlying finer materials from washing out through the
lining. Experiments referred to in NCHRP Report 108, "Tentative Design Procedure for Rip-
Rap-Lined Channels," HRB, 1970, indicate that a well-graded dumped stone lining can be
considerably thinner than a uniformly graded dumped stone lining and s t i l l provide equivalent
protection against washing out of the underlying material.
The following tabulation lists the minimum permissible mean particle sizes (d50), assuming
spherical stone, and the roughness coefficients (Mannings n) for the four types of stone filling
mentioned in this manual:
Stone Filling Type d50 Mannings n
Stone Filling (Fine) 3 in. (75 mm) 0.031
Stone Filling (Light) 6 in. (150 mm) 0.035
Stone Filling (Medium) 13 in. (350 mm) 0.040
Stone Filling (Heavy) 23 in. (600 mm) 0.044
The erosion resistance of a dumped stone lining depends on the average size of the stone and on
channel geometry. Figures 6 through 11 should be used to determine the stone size required to
provide adequate erosion resistance for the design flow and proposed channel geometry.
It is not known how ice action (impacts, shoving, etc.) affects the various sizes of stone filling.
Local experience may show that, in order to avoid displacement by moving ice, the stone size has
to be increased above the values given by Figures 6 through 11. In canals and some locations in
navigable streams, the erosive effect due to passing ships or barges may be more critical than that
of the current or of wind-caused moves. In such cases, previous experience should govern the
selection of a suitable size of stone filling for erosion protection.
EB 15-025 Page 32 of 59
It is recommended that dumped stone linings not be designed thinner than the thicknesses given
in the following tabulation:
Stone Filling Type Minimum Thickness
Stone Filling (Fine) 9 in. (225 mm)
Stone Filling (Light) 12 in. (300 mm)
Stone Filling (Medium) 18 in. (450 mm)
Stone Filling (Heavy) 30 in. (750 mm)
Smaller thicknesses would not be realistic in view of the specified particle sizes of the lining
materials and the natural variability of rock particle sizes.
If stones having a diameter greater than the recommended minimum lining thickness are
specified, the lining thickness should be increased to equal the maximum stone diameter. It
should be kept in mind that the ability of a dumped stone lining to resist erosion is not increased
by increasing the thickness of the lining. This resistance can be increased only by increasing the
average stone size or by flattening the slope. In the absence of an adequate filter layer, increasing
the lining thickness does reduce the probability of underlying finer material washing out through
voids in the lining.
Post-construction maintenance of dumped stone linings can be accomplished relatively easily by

rearranging displaced stone with a backhoe or gradall, or by dumping additional stone where the
lining has been disrupted. If it is seen that the stones originally used in the lining were moved by
the water, larger size stone should be used in rehabilitation work
EB 15-025 Page 33 of 59
FIG. 18 GRASS LINED SWALE
FIG. 19 INSTALLATION OF EROSION CONTROL MAT FOR

STABILIZATION OF GRASS LINED SWALE
EB 15-025 Page 34 of 59
FIG. 20 STONE LINING CONSISTING OF STONE FILLING (LIGHT)
INSTALLED OVER A BEDDING LAYER OF COARSE
AGGREGATE GRADATION CA2
FIG. 21 STONE FILLING (HEAVY) INSTALLED AS TOE PROTECTION

WHILE GRADATIONS IN UPPER PORTION OF SLOPE VARY
IN LAYERS TO ALLOW TOPSOIL AND SEED
EB 15-025 Page 35 of 59
5.3.3 Paved or grouted linings
This group of linings includes those constructed of Portland cement concrete, asphalt concrete,
grouted rip-rap (Fig. 22) or grouted stone paving. These linings are comparatively smooth, and
water flows over them with a high velocity producing the following undesirable results:
1) Plucking action of water at cracks and joints may remove underlying supporting soil.
2) Unless adequate protection is provided at the downstream end, the high-speed flow
tends to erode a plunge pool that may work its way back and undermine the lining.
Because of their rigidity, paved and grouted linings are unable to adjust to settlement or local loss
of the supporting soil. Consequently, they are subject to undermining that becomes progressively
more severe, frequently resulting in a complete failure (Fig. 23).
There are conditions, however, under which a paved lining may be the most economical
alternative. The following precautions in the design and construction of paved linings will
increase the chances for a successful installation:
1) Use a paved lining only in soil conditions where settlement or lateral movement of the
foundation soil is not likely to occur.
2) Use a channel grade not steeper than 10 percent.
3) Do not use a channel grade flatter than 0.35 percent in order to avoid deposition of
sediment.
4) Compact loose foundation soils.
5) Provide an underdrain system for major channels where hydrostatic uplift forces are
anticipated. Do not use weep holes unless foundation is rock or compact till, or
provisions are made to prevent the washing out of the supporting soil.
6) Depress channel so that the top of the lining is below the surrounding ground surface.
7) Place strip of sod, at least 1 ft. (0.3 m) wide, on each side adjacent to the paved lining.
8) Do not use contraction or expansion joints.
9) Use continuous reinforcement extending through all construction joints.
10) Increase the height of lining on the outside of bends and opposite connecting
channels.
11) Collect and control flow at the upstream end of the lining in order to prevent under
mining by water flowing adjacent to the channel.
12) Provide cutoffs below ground surface at upstream and downstream ends of lining.
13) Protect against erosion at downstream end of lining as recommended in 6.
PROTECTION AT CULVERT AND PAVED CHANNEL OUTLETS.
EB 15-025 Page 36 of 59
FIG. 22 GROUTED RIP-RAP
FIG. 23 FAILURE OF PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE CHANNEL

LINING
5.3.4 Dry rip-rap and bagged concrete

EB 15-025 Page 37 of 59
In the terminology used by the Department, dry rip-rap consists of individual stones each
weighing 100 lbs. (50 kg.) or more, placed in a single layer on the surface to be protected (Fig.
24).
Bagged concrete or concrete rip-rap in bags is made up of bags filled with concrete and placed on
a slope next to each other. Steel dowels are placed through adjacent bags before the concrete has
set (Fig. 25).
Both of the above lining types consist of particles of approximately equal size placed closely next
to each other in a single, relatively thin layer. The movement of any element out of its location
exposes the underlying material to the erosive force of water and may start a progressive failure.
In using dry rip-rap and bagged concrete linings, the best results are achieved if the following
conditions are met:
1) Settlement or lateral movement of foundation soils is not anticipated.
2) Ice conditions in winter and spring are not severe.
3) Rip-rap is placed on a 6 in. (150 mm) thick bedding layer.
4) Protect against erosion at downstream end of lining as recommended in 6.
PROTECTION AT CULVERT AND PAVED CHANNEL OUTLETS.
5.3.5 Gabions
Gabions are baskets formed of wire mesh and filled with crushed stone, cobbles or coarse gravel
(Fig. 26 and 27). A thinner version of gabions is known as a Reno mattress. The following
considerations enter into the decision on whether or not to use gabions:
1) Gabions require a great deal of hand labor.
2) They are difficult if not impossible to place in water deeper than 2 ft. (0.6 m).
3) The availability of suitable stone (4 in. (100 mm) to 12 in. (300 mm) in size and
having a maximum of 10 percent loss after 10 cycles of magnesium sulfate soundness
test) should be investigated).
Where gabions will be exposed to corrosive waters or industrial fumes, the baskets should
be constructed of P. V. C. coated wire.
EB 15-025 Page 38 of 59
FIG. 24 DRY RIP-RAP
FIG. 25 CONCRETE RIP-RAP IN BAGS
EB 15-025 Page 39 of 59
FIG. 26 GABION WALL LAYOUT OF FOUNDATION UNITS
FIG. 27 GABION WALL CONSTRUCTION
EB 15-025 Page 40 of 59
5.3.6 Fabriform
Fabriform is a patented lining, www.fabriform1.com, consisting of two sheets of nylon fabric
fastened together at regular intervals and filled with Portland cement grout (Figs. 28 and 29). A
Fabriform lining can be placed by a diver to a considerable depth under water.
The nylon fabric deteriorates under prolonged exposure to sunlight. In southern United States
under conditions of intense sunlight, complete disintegration of the upper sheet has taken place in
less than five years after construction. Protective coatings can be used to reduce the rate of
deterioration. The distributors state that, even in installations where the entire upper part of the
nylon cover has disintegrated, the solidified grout has remained in place and that, if the outer
nylon cover is torn by ice or abrasive bed load, the Fabriform blanket as a whole will remain
intact.
Fabriform has been used with good success by the Department. Specifications, typical sections,
and cost information are available from the Design Division.
5.3.7 Soil cement

Soil cement facings have been used for protection against wave erosion on several dams,
www.cement.org/water/dams_sc.asp. Sandy soil is required to produce acceptable soil cement. A
manual entitled Soil-Cement Slope Protection published by the Portland Cement Association is a
comprehensive reference on all aspects of the use of soil cement for erosion protection.
5.3.8 Closed pipe drains

Though not a type of lining, closed pipe drains are mentioned here because on steep slopes they
may be more economical than dumped stone or other linings. Closed pipe drains have the
advantage of not being subject to overtopping, but they can be undermined by water flowing
along the boundary between the pipe and the backfill material. Therefore, the inlet should be
constructed so as to channel all flow into the pipe. A cutoff should be provided at the inlet, and
foundation and backfill material should be thoroughly compacted. Erosion protection in
accordance with 6. PROTECTION AT CULVERT AND PAVED CHANNEL OUTLETS should
be provided at the downstream end.
EB 15-025 Page 41 of 59
FIG. 28 FABRIFORM LINING (ALLEGHENY RESERVOIR, NEW YORK)
FIG. 29 FABRIFORM LINING (SILVER LAKE, MINNESOTA)
EB 15-025 Page 42 of 59
5.4 Required extent of linings
5.4.1 Stream channel linings
Most failures of protective linings can be attributed to inadequate extent of the lining and
subsequent undermining. In order to prevent this type of failure, a lining should be terminated at
stable features or extended at its lateral limits to such a depth that undermining will not occur.
The upper limit of dumped stone protective blankets should generally be at the design high water
level. In wide rivers some freeboard should be provided to protect against wave action. Grass
cover established above the upper limit of the stone will normally provide adequate protection
against flood flows.
Blanket type linings protecting the banks of sizable streams should be extended to bedrock
outcrops, natural slopes deriving erosion resistance from well-established vegetation, or other
stable features. If this is not feasible, cutoffs should be provided at the upstream and downstream
ends of the protective blanket as shown in Figure 30 for stone filling protective linings.
Maximum protection against erosion at the toe is obtained if the protective lining is continued to
bedrock or other erosion-resistant stratum. However, it is seldom feasible to do so. As an
alternate, where the channel is composed of sand and/or silt, bank protection may be terminated
at a depth of at least 5 ft. (1.5 m) below the streambed. The depth should be increased at the
outside banks of sharp bends and at other locations where scour is likely to occur, and the lining
extended to the anticipated depth of scour. Unfortunately, the computation of the depth of scour
is a problem that has, in spite of numerous attempts, so far escaped solution. Figures 28 and 29
are based on data obtained from model tests relating depth of scour to the dimensions of channel
constrictions.
A long channel constriction (Fig. 31) corresponds to the practical case of an embankment built
roughly parallel to and in or adjacent to a stream. A short constriction (Fig. 32) occurs at many
locations where a highway crosses a stream. The relationships shown in Figures 31 and 32 should
be regarded only as rough guides to judgment when attempting to predict scour depths. The
actual scour depths may be considerably smaller or greater depending on such factors as: the type
of stream-bed material, amount of bed load carried by the stream, channel geometry, and others.
When evaluating the possibility of scour, it should be noted that an embankment or a structure
may not encroach on a stream while it is carrying normal flow, but may do so during floods when
the stream flows in a wider channel.
At locations having erodible channel conditions, where it is not practical to dig a trench and
continue the protective blanket below the streambed, a stone toe provides material that will fall
into a scour hole that may develop and in this way extend the blanket. Recommended toe
dimensions are shown in Figure 33. If a paved or grouted rip-rap lining is used in a relatively
narrow channel, the entire width of the channel should be lined. If it is not feasible to do so, some
other type of lining should generally be selected.
EB 15-025 Page 43 of 59
FIG. 30 CUTOFFS AT UPSTRAM AND DOWNSTREAM ENDS OF STONE
FILLING PROTECTIVE LININGS
EB 15-025 Page 44 of 59
FIG. 31 DEPTH OF SCOUR IN LONG CHANNEL CONSTRICTIONS
EB 15-025 Page 45 of 59
FIG. 32 DEPTH OF SCOUR AT SHORT CHANNEL CONSTRICTIONS
EB 15-025 Page 46 of 59
FIG. 33 RECOMMENDED DIMENSIONS FOR STONE TOES IN
ERODIBLE CHANNELS
EB 15-025 Page 47 of 59
5.4.2 Small roadside drainage channels
In the case of small roadside or down slope drainage channels, erosion starts most often at the
downstream end of the channel lining, if the flow discharges onto natural ground or into an
unlined ditch. It is important to make sure that the slope of the ditch or the natural ground
downstream of the lining is sufficiently flat so that the discharged flow of water causes no
erosion. In addition, a vertical cutoff and a dumped stone apron, a plunge pool lined with stone,
or some other type of energy dissipater should be provided at the discharge end of channels
carrying flow with a high velocity head (for example, channels having Portland cement concrete,
asphalt concrete, hand placed dry or grouted rip-rap, or similar smooth linings). Additional lining
height should be provided on the outside of bends and at channel junctions.
5.5 Protection against wave action

Wave action can erode the unprotected slopes of embankments built adjacent to reservoirs, lakes,
or wide rivers. The maximum height of waves that can be expected to occur at a location depends
on the wind velocity, the fetch (or length of open water over which the wind acts) and the
duration of the wind. If these factors are known, the maximum wave height can be estimated
from Figure 34.
Stone filling (medium) can be used as protection against wave action at locations where the wave
height is expected to be between 1 ft. (0.3 m) and 4 ft. (1.2 m). Stone filling (heavy) should be
used where wave heights of 4 ft. (1.2 m) to 10 ft. (3.0 m) are anticipated. Wave protection can be
reduced on slopes flatter than 1V on 4H. Slopes of inland bodies of water having an inclination
of 1V on 8H or flatter can be protected by a 12 in. (300 mm) layer of stone filling (fine)
regardless of wave height.
Wave protection should extend from 1.5 times the wave height above high water level to 5 ft.
(1.5 m) below low water level. In the case of flood-control reservoirs, where high water level is
maintained only a short period of time and vegetation can be established on the slopes, other
wave protection may not be necessary. The design of seashore wave protection should be based
on local experience.
EB 15-025 Page 48 of 59
FIG. 34 MAXIMUM WAVE HEIGHT IN RESERVOIRS AND LAKES AS A FUNCTION OF
WIND VELOCITY, WIND DURATION AND FETCH
EB 15-025 Page 49 of 59
6. PROTECTION AT CULVERT AND PAVED CHANNEL OUTLETS
6.1 Need for protection

At high flows water leaving a culvert or a smooth-lined channel has sufficient energy to excavate
a large scour hole at the outlet. Therefore, protection should be provided at this location, at the
very least to prevent damage to the culvert or lining. Additional protection is needed if it is
desired to entirely avoid the occurrence of a scour hole downstream of the culvert. The protection
may consist of:
1) A cutoff wall that keeps the scour hole from undermining the outlet.
2) A protective apron that prevents erosion of underlying materials and thus keeps a
scour hole from developing.
3) Energy dissipating devices that reduce the flow velocity to a value that will not
cause erosion.
4) A combination of two or more of the above.
Eddy flow may cause erosion also at the culvert inlet. Protection for the embankment at the
inlet end should be provided on the basis of judgment and experience. The protection should
extend vertically at least to the design high water level. The minimum lateral limits of inlet
protection should be one culvert diameter or span to each side of the culvert for single
culverts, and one culvert diameter or span outside the outer culverts in a multiple culvert
installation.
6.2 Design of dumped stone protective aprons

This manual presents design recommendations for dumped stone protective aprons, touching
only briefly on other types of protection. Dumped stone filling is preferred for use in aprons since
the rough texture of this material dissipates the energy of the water to a certain extent and
reduces the potential for erosion or scour further downstream. In addition, this material is not as
subject to progressive failure as some other lining materials. The recommended configuration for
dumped stone aprons is shown in Figure 35. The type of material and the length required for the
apron should be determined from Figure 36.
The lateral apron limits shown in Figure 35 are the maximum limits and apply for a culvert
outletting into a wide channel. In cases where the culvert discharges into a narrow well-defined
channel, the apron can be discontinued at design high water elevation. The stone sizes and apron
lengths given in Figure 36 are for aprons with longitudinal slopes of less than ten percent. If an
apron is to be built on a grade equal to or steeper than ten percent, the number of the zone (for
Zones 1 through 6) obtained from the graph should be increased by one before selecting apron
material and length from the table in Figure 36. For example, if D0=5 ft., V0=4 ft./sec., and apron
grade is less than 10%, a 15 ft. apron of stone filling (light) would be required to protect the
culvert. For the same values of D0 and V0, if the apron grade were increased to 10% or more, a
20 ft. apron of stone filling (medium) would be required. No adjustment is necessary for
combinations of V0 and D0 giving points in Zone 7.
EB 15-025 Page 50 of 59
FIG. 35 RECOMMENDED LIMITS FOR PROTECTIVE APRONS AT
CULVERT OUTLETS
EB 15-025 Page 51 of 59
FIG. 36 RECOMMENDED PROTECTIVE APRON MATERIALS AND
LENGTHS
EB 15-025 Page 52 of 59
The thickness of the stone lining in an apron should be equal to or greater than shown in the
following tabulation:
Stone Lining Thickness

These thicknesses are greater than those recommended for other applications because the
concentrated flow from the culvert rearranges the stone to some extent.
6.3 Other types of protection

In some cases an energy dissipater may have to be used at a culvert outlet because erosion
protection by means of a dumped stone apron would require stone of excessive size. In other
cases a stilling basin or an energy dissipater may be more economical than an apron. The
following three are among references that can be used as an aid in the design of energy
dissipaters and stilling basins:
1) Engineering Monograph No - 25, Hydraulic Design of Stilling Basins and Energy
Dissipaters, U. S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, 1963.
2) MacDonald, T. C. Energy Dissipaters for Large Culverts, American Society of Civil
Engineers, Journal of the Hydraulics Division, Vol. 95, No. HY6, pp. 1941-1958,
November 1969.
3) Thorson et al., Design Criteria for Controlled Scour and Energy Dissipation at
Culvert Outlets using Rock and a Sill, HRB Annual Meeting, January 1971.
Channel protection downstream of the energy dissipater can generally be designed in accordance
with 5. DESIGN OF PROTECTIVE LININGS.
In soils containing particles of coarse gravel size and larger, protection other than a shallow
cutoff wall may not be necessary for the culvert if a scour hole can be tolerated. The formation of
a scour hole induces the energy of the flow and the size of the particles in the scour hole
increases because the finer materials are washed out first. As a result, the scour stabilizes, leaving
a stone-lined plunge pool or stilling basin that acts as an energy dissipater. The depth of the
plunge pool is a function of the culvert flow and the gradation of the soil.
EB 15-025 Page 53 of 59
Model tests performed by the Corps of Engineers (Ref. 5) indicate that, if a cutoff wall alone is
used to protect a culvert from undermining in uniform fine sand, the required depth of the cutoff
wall is as follows:
1) One and one-half culvert diameters, when the tail water is below mid-height of the
culvert.
2) One-half the culvert diameter, when the tail water is above mid-height of the culvert.
It is recommended, therefore, that additional protection besides a cutoff wall be used in soils other
than coarse-grained glacial tills or outwash, unless a high tail water condition is maintained
permanently.
EB 15-025 Page 54 of 59
7. FILTER OR BEDDING LAYERS
7.1 The need for filter or bedding layers

Water seeping through a soil induces seepage pressures, which tend to move the soil particles in
the direction of seepage. If the soil does not have sufficient cohesion and the individual soil
particles are not sufficiently heavy to resist the seepage force, they will be displaced. This may
result in erosion, starting at a point where the soil particles are not held in place by overlying
materials. If the soil contains a sufficient proportion of particles that are too large for the seepage
forces to move, a natural filter layer maybe built up as some of the fine particles are washed out
and erosion tends to cease. In the absence of coarse particles, erosion may work its way
progressively back. Examples of this occurrence are some types of cut slope sloughs and piping
under or through dams. Criteria have been developed for the determination of the required grain
size of a granular filter material, which when placed over a soil with a known grain size
distribution, will prevent erosion of the soil. As an alternate to a granular material, geotextile
bedding, consisting of a fabric that has pores permitting water to pass but retaining most of the
soil particles, is often used.
Water flowing over a protective lining that has openings, such as stone filling or dry rip-rap, can
pluck out underlying soil particles if the openings are large compared to the size of the soil
particles and if the water velocity is sufficiently high. In the case of dumped stone linings, the
water velocity at the bottom of the lining is comparatively low because of the rough texture and
the thickness of the lining. Therefore, strict observation of the usual filter criteria in determining
the need for and the required gradation of a granular filter or bedding layer would be
overconservative and uneconomical. Exceptions, where filter criteria should be strictly observed,
are the presence of moderate to severe wave action or of a steep hydraulic gradient in the
foundation soil leading to high seepage pressures in the direction of the lining.
For the purpose of evaluating the need for a bedding layer, soils may be divided into two groups:
1) Erodible soils - Non-plastic soils consisting predominantly of sand and silt with less
than 15 percent, by weight, of particles retained on the in. (6.3 mm) sieve. Erodible
soils are usually found as alluvium, beach, delta and dune deposits as well as non-
plastic lake sediments.
2) Non-erodible soils - Soils containing at least 15 percent, by weight, of particles
retained on the in. (6.3 mm) sieve and/or having some plasticity.
Local experience may indicate that some soils, which, based on the above criteria, would belong
to the second group, present erosion problems in the field. These soils should be treated as
erodible soils. The Regional Geotechnical Engineer should be contacted for advice regarding the
erodibility of soils at a particular site.
EB 15-025 Page 55 of 59
7.2 Granular filter or bedding material
Except for installations where waves with a height of 2 ft. (0.6 m) or greater are anticipated, a
bedding layer is not required over non-erodible soils, a layer of bedding material having a
thickness as shown in the following table should be provided:
Stone Lining Thickness of Bedding
Layer
If waves with a height of 2 ft. (0.6 m) or greater are anticipated, a bedding layer should be
provided wherever the foundation soil has less than 15 percent, by weight, of particles retained
on the 1 in. (37.5 mm) sieve. The thickness of the bedding layers for the different types of
dumped stone lining should be the same as shown in the above table. A bedding layer is not
required if the Regional Geotechnical Engineer determines that the soil is a clay or silty clay
with a liquid limit greater than 30.
Dry and grouted rip-rap linings should be placed on a 6 in. (150 mm) layer of bedding material
unless the foundation soil contains at least 15 percent, by weight, particles retained on the in.
(12.5 mm) sieve. The criteria for determining the need to provide a bedding layer are more severe
for these linings because, owing to their smoother surface texture, water flows over them with a
higher velocity.
Bedding layers are not normally required under gabions and Fabriform.
7.3 Geotextile bedding

Geotextile can often be used as a more economical bedding material than gravel crushed stone.
The section on geotextiles in the Standard Specifications contains detailed requirements for
placement of geotexti1e to be used as bedding material. Certain cautions should be kept in mind
when considering the use of geotexti1e bedding:
1) The stability of geotexti1e bedding placed on a 1 vertical on 2 horizontal slope will be
borderline even in a granular natural soil. A slope of 1 vertical on 2.5 horizontal or
flatter is recommended. The steepest slope should be even flatter in plastic soils.
However, plastic soils usually do not require the use of bedding material.
2) The life expectancy of geotextiles and changes in their filtration properties over time
are not well understood. Therefore, the use of geotextile filters and bedding is not
recommended in types of construction with a long design life where consequences of
failure could be serious, e.g. dams.
3) The presence of fuel oil or caustic material in the water carried by the channel can
damage geotextiles.
4) Geotextiles may be damaged or destroyed by abrasion, such as results from stones
being moved by flowing water.
EB 15-025 Page 56 of 59
5) Geotextile is not recommended as bedding for dry or grouted rip-rap since, to achieve
the objective of a smooth face, adjacent stones may have to be embedded in the
bedding material to different depths.
Backfill material finer than coarse gravel can infiltrate the voids between the stones in a gabion
wall. This occurrence can be prevented economically by covering the stone-filled gabions with
geotextile before placing backfill against or over them.
EB 15-025 Page 57 of 59
REFERENCES
1. Hydraulic Engineering Circular No. 6, Design of Roadside Drainage Channels, U. S.

Department of Commerce, Bureau of Public Roads, April 1962.
2. Hydraulic Engineering Circular No. 11, Design of Riprap Revetment, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Publication No. FHWA-IP-89-016,
March 1989.
3. McWhorter, J. C., et al., Erosion Control Criteria for Drainage Channels, Mississippi
State University, March, 1968.
4. NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice No. 5, Scour at Bridge Waterways, HRB, 1970.
5. Research Report H-70-2, Erosion and Rip-Rap Requirements at Culvert and Storm Drain
Outlets, U. S. Army, Engineers Waterways Experimental Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi,
January, 1970.
6. Sherard, J. L., et al., Earth and Earth-Rock Dams, John Whey and Sons, Inc., 1963.
7. Simons, D.B., et al., Flood Protection at Culvert Outlets, Wyoming State Highway
Department, 1970.
8. State of California, Department of Public Works, Division of Highways, Bank and Shore
Protection in California Highway Practice, November, 1960.
9. Thorson, D.A., et al., Design Criteria for Controlled Scour and Energy Dissipation at
Culvert Outlets Using Rock and a Sill, HRB Annual Meeting, January, 1971.
EB 15-025 Page 58 of 59
APPENDIX
Sample Problems
EB 15-025 Page 59 of 59
Sample Problem No. 1 (US Customary Units)
Problem:
A highway embankment will be constructed on the flood plain of a river. Design a protective
lining for the embankment. A plan view of the area is shown.
Available information:
1. Flood plain soil is a fine silty sand.
2. Design flood flow is 9400 ft3/sec.
3. Cross-sectional area of flow at design flood (after embankment construction is 1300
ft2. No appreciable difference between slope of main channel banks and flood plain.
4. Maximum depth of river at design flood is 12 ft. Average slope of water surface at
design flood is 0.002.
5. Embankment side slopes are 1V on 2H.
6. Embankment material is a fine sand.
Solution:
Average velocity of flow = Q/A = 9400/1300 = 7.2 ft/sec.
Refer to plan view. The ratio of the radius of curvature of the channel to channel width at design
flow is less than 10, by inspection. Therefore, the curves for rapidly varying flow in Fig. 7 should
be used. For a maximum flow depth of 12 ft., the maximum allowable average flow velocity for
stone filling (fine) is 6.7 ft/sec. Consequently, stone filling (light) is the required protection.
As the flow spreads out over the flood plain, at a certain depth the flow velocity is so low that no
protection other than grass is required. This depth and the points at which the stone filling can be
ended are found as follows.
If the channel bottom is comparatively flat and the channel is wide, the hydraulic radius, R, will
be approximately equal to the depth of flow. For a small depth, from Figure 6, grass will provide
adequate erosion protection for an easily erodible soil if the velocity of flow is not more than 2
ft/sec. From Fig. 16, for a slope of 0.002 and a velocity of 2 ft/sec, the hydraulic radius, R, is 1.4
ft. No embankment protection, other than grass, is necessary where the depth of flow is less than
1.4 ft. A stone filling (light) protective lining is provided, therefore, only between C/L Station A
and C/L Station B. A typical section of the lining is shown in Section A-A. Normally, excavated
material could be used to backfill the trench, the cross-section of which is triangle KLM. In this
case, however, because of the location on the outside of a bend, additional protection against
undermining of the lining has been obtained by using stone filling (light) also in KLM. A fine
sand is an easily erodible soil. Therefore, a 6 inch layer of bedding material has been provided.
Since the flow velocities at Station A and Station B will be comparatively low, no cut-offs
normal to the direction of flow have been provided.
EB 15-025 A-1
EB 15-025 A-2
Problem:
Select a lining for a ditch carrying flow at the transition from fill to original ground as shown
in the plan view.
Available Information:
1. Embankment material and foundation soil are well graded glacial till.
2. Slope of ditch shown in plan view.
3. Design flow = 2 cfs.
Solution:
From Fig. 9, a triangular ditch on a 25% grade carrying a flow of 2 cfs would need a stone
filling (medium) lining if the channel side slopes were 1V on 2H. However, with 1V on 4H
side slopes (Fig. 10) the ditch only needs a grass lining. Therefore, use a triangular cross-
section, grass-lined ditch.
For a triangular channel with 1V on 4H side slopes the depth of flow can be found in the
following way:
EB 15-025 A-3
1. Assume a value of n, say 0.05.
2. Enter Fig. 13 with Qn = 2 x 0.05 = 0.1.
3. For Qn = 0.1 and slope = 0.25, Vn = 0.2.
4. From Fig. 16 for slope = 0.25 and velocity = Vn/n = 0.2/0.05 = 4 ft/sec, n = 0.063.
5. Try n=0.07.
6. From Fig. 13 for Qn = 2 x 0.07 = 0.14 and slope = 0.25, Vn = 0.22.
7. From Fig. 16 for slope = 0.25 and velocity = 0.22/0.07 = 3.1 ft/sec, n = 0.7.
8. From Fig. 13 the depth of flow corresponding to Qn = 0.14 and Vn = 0.22 is approximately
0.22 ft.
The depth of the rounded portion of the channel shown in Fig. 13 is found to be 0.25 ft. by
geometry. Therefore, a 4 ft. wide rounded channel is adequate. Sod is selected for use instead of
seeding protected by jute mesh, because of the lower probability of erosion before the grass cover is
established.
The lining for the lower section of the ditch, which is on a 5% grade selected as follows (a
triangular ditch with 1V on 4H side slopes will be used):
1. Assume a value of n, say 0.10 (grass lining).
2. Enter Fig. 13 with Qn = 2 x 0.10 = 0.20.
4. From Fig. 16 for slope = 0.05 and velocity = Vn/n = 0.14/0.10 = 1.4 ft/sec, n = 0.095.
5. From Fig. 13 the depth of flow corresponding to Qn = 0.20 and Vn = 0.14 is approximately
0.40 ft.
6. Since the grade of the ditch is less than 10%, Fig. 6 is used to select the lining material. The
bend in the alignment of the channel is not particularly severe. Therefore, the velocity is
increased by a factor of 1.5 when selecting the lining material for the outside of the bend.
The increased velocity is 2.1 ft/sec. and a grass lining is adequate.
The width of channel required for the computed 0.40 ft. depth is 4+ (0.40-0.25)(4)(2) = 5.2 ft., say 6
ft.
Because the curve in alignment is gradual and because a grass lining is not subject to damage by
undermining, an increase in the height of the lining on the outside of the curve is not considered
necessary. A short vertical curve should, however, be provided as a transition between the 25% and
5% ditch sections.
EB 15-025 A-4
Problem:
Design a protective apron to prevent undermining at the outlet of the three 72 inch diameter steel
structure plate pipe culverts shown in Plan View A.
1. Foundation soil is a well-graded sand and gravel.
2. Culverts discharge into broad flat area so that low tail water conditions will prevail.
3. Longitudinal slope of apron at culvert outlet is less than 10%.
4. Velocity of flow at culvert outlet is 8 ft/sec.
Solution:
For multiple culverts Do = 1.25 x pipe diameter = 1.25 x 6 = 7.5 ft. From Fig. 36 for Vo = 8 ft/sec.
and Do = 7.5 ft., use stone filling (medium) and apron length L1 = 4 x Do = 30 ft. The size of stone
filling obtained from Fig. 36 does not have to be increased since the longitudinal slope of the apron
is less than 10%.
The area where the culverts outlet is flat. Therefore, the full lateral apron dimensions shown in Fig.
35 will apply, that is, the apron will not be discontinued laterally at a location where the bank of the
channel reaches design high water elevation. The limits of the protection designed for the culverts
are shown in Plan View B and Section A-A.
EB 15-025 A-5
EB 15-025 A-6
Sample Problem No. 1 (International System of Units)
Problem:
A highway embankment will be constructed on the flood plain of a river. Design a protective
lining for the embankment. A plan view of the area is shown.
Available information:
7. Flood plain soil is a fine silty sand.
8. Design flood flow is 265 m3/s.
9. Cross-sectional area of flow at design flood (after embankment construction is 120
m2. No appreciable difference between slope of main channel banks and flood plain.
10. Maximum depth of river at design flood is 3.5 m. Average slope of water surface at
design flood is 0.002.
11. Embankment side slopes are 1 on 2.
12. Embankment material is a fine sand.
Solution:
Average velocity of flow = Q/A = 265/120 = 2.21 m/s.
Refer to plan view. The ratio of the radius of curvature of the channel to channel width at design
flow is less than 10, by inspection. Therefore, the curves for rapidly varying flow in Fig. 7 should
be used. For a maximum flow depth of 3.5m, the maximum allowable average flow velocity for
stone filling (fine) is 2.05 m/s. Consequently, stone filling (light) is the required protection.
As the flow spreads out over the flood plain, at a certain depth the flow velocity is so low that no
protection other than grass is required. This depth and the points at which the stone filling can be
ended are found as follows.
If the channel bottom is comparatively flat and the channel is wide, the hydraulic radius, R, will
be approximately equal to the depth of flow. For a small depth, from Figure 6, grass will provide
adequate erosion protection for an easily erodible soil if the velocity of flow is not more than 0.6
m/s. From Fig. 15, for a slope of 0.002 and a velocity of 0.6 m/s, the hydraulic radius, R, is
0.41m. No embankment protection, other than grass, is necessary where the depth of flow is less
than 0.41m. A stone filling (light) protective lining is provided, therefore, only between C/L
Station A and C/L Station B. A typical section of the lining is shown in Section A-A. Normally,
excavated material could be used to backfill the trench, the cross-section of which is triangle
KLM. In this case, however, because of the location on the outside of a bend, additional
protection against undermining o the lining has been obtained by using stone filling (light) also in
KLM. A fine sand is an easily erodible soil. Therefore, a 150mm layer of bedding material has
been provided. Since the flow velocities at Station A and Station B will be comparatively low, no
cut-offs normal to the direction of flow have been provided.
EB 15-025 B-1
EB 15-025 B-2
Problem:
Select a lining for a ditch carrying flow at the transition form fill to original ground as shown
in the plan view.
1. Embankment material and foundation soil are well graded glacial till.
2. Slope of ditch shown in plan view.
3. Design flow = 0. 08 m3/s.
Solution:
From Fig. 9, a triangular ditch on a 20% grade carrying a flow of 0.08 m3/s would need a
stone filling (medium) lining if the channel side slopes were 1 on 2. However, with 1 on 4
side slopes (Fig. 10) the ditch only needs a grass lining. Therefore, use a triangular cross-
section, grass-lined ditch.
For a triangular channel with 1 on 4 side slopes the depth of flow can be found in the following
way:
1. Assume a value of n, say 0.05.
2. Enter Fig. 13 with Qn = 0.08 x 0.05 = 0. 004.
3. For Qn = 0. 004 and slope = 0.20, Vn = 0 - 065.
EB 15-025 B-3
4. From Fig. 15 for slope = 0.20 and velocity = Vn/n = 0.065/0.05=1.3 m/s, n = 0.06.
5. Try n = 0.07.
6. From Fig. 13 for Qn = 0.08 x 0.07 = 0.0056 and slope = 0.20, Vn = 0.07.
7. From Fig. 15 for slope = 0.20 and velocity = 0.07/0.07 = 1 m/s, n=0.07.
8. From Fig. 13 the depth of flow corresponding to Qn = 0.0056 and Vn=0.07 is
approximately 0.08 m.
The depth of the rounded portion of the channel shown in Fig. 13 is found to be 0.075 m by
geometry. Therefore, a 1.2 m wide rounded channel is adequate. Sod is selected for use instead of
seeding protected by jute mesh, because of the lower probability of erosion before the grass cover is
established.
The lining for the lower section of the ditch, which is on a 5% grade selected as follows (A
triangular ditch with 1 on 4 side slopes will be used):
1. Assume a value of n, say 0.08 (grass lining).
2. Enter Fig. 13 with Qn = 0.08 x 0,08 = 0.0064.
4. From Fig. 15 for slope = 0.05 and velocity = Vn/n = 0.045/0.08=0.56 m/s, n = 0.08.
5. From Fig. 13 the depth of flow corresponding to Qn = 0.0064 and Vn= 0. 045 is
approximately 0.12 m.
6. Since the grade of the ditch is less than 10%, Fig. 6 is used to select the lining material. The
bend in the alignment of the channel is not particularly severe. Therefore, the curves for
gradually varying flow are used when selecting the lining material. A grass lining is
adequate.
The width of channel required for the computed 0.12 m depth is 1.2+(0.12 - 0.075) x 4 x 2 = 1.56
m, say 1.6 m.
Because the curve in alignment is gradual and because a grass lining is not subject to damage by
undermining, an increase in the height of the lining on the outside of the curve is not considered
necessary. A short vertical curve should, however, be provided as a transition between the 20% and
5% ditch sections.
EB 15-025 B-4
Problem:
Design a protective apron to prevent undermining at the outlet of the three 1800 mm diameter steel
structure plate pipe culverts shown in Plan View A.
1. Foundation soil is a well-graded sand and gravel.
2. Culverts discharge into broad flat area so that low tailwater conditions will prevail.
3. Longitudinal slope of apron at culvert outlet is less than 10%.
4. Velocity of flow at culvert outlet is 2.4 m/s.
Solution:
For multiple culverts Do = 1.25 x pipe diameter = 1.25 x 1 800 mm = 2.25 m. From Fig. 33 for Vo =
2.4 m/s and Do = 2.25 m, use stone filling (medium) and apron length L1 = 4 x Do = 9 m. The size
of stone filling obtained from Fig. 33 does not have to be increased since the longitudinal slope of
the apron is less than 10%.
The area where the culverts outlet is flat. Therefore, the full lateral apron dimensions shown in Fig.
32 will apply, that is, the apron will not be discontinued laterally at a location where the bank of the
channel reaches design high water elevation. The limits of the protection designed for the culverts
are shown in Plan View B and Section A-A.
EB 15-025 B-5
EB 15-025 B-6

GDP 10b PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

GDP 10b PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

BANK AND CHANNEL PROTECTIVE LINING

GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN PROCEDURE

STATE OF NEW YORK

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING BUREAU

1.1 Purpose of erosion-resistant design

1) A description of causes of erosion and methods of avoiding it.

2.2 Natural meanders or man-made bends in the alignment of a channel.

2.3 Constrictions in a channel

FIG. 2 CHANNEL BEND IN BACKGROUND DEFLECTS FLOW TOWARDS

2.5 Changes in the slope of a channel bottom

2.6 Abrupt changes in the width of a channel

2.7 Junctions of channels

2.8 Excavations in a stream channel

2.10 Compound problems

FIG. 4 USE OF GROINS TO CONTROL FLOW AND EROSION IN A RIVER

3.1 Flow quantity or velocity

3.2 Channel geometry

3.3 Erodibility of foundation soils

3.4 Possibility of non-uniform settlement

3.5 Wave height

3.6 Ice action

3.7 Relative costs of lining types

4.1 General considerations

A material can derive resistance to erosion from several sources:

4.2 Economic considerations

1) On-site rock cuts.

3) Gravel pit scalpings.

5) Other possible sources.

5.2 Use of design charts

Legend and Notes

Uniform flow - straight or mildly curving reach

FIG. 6 PROTECTIVE LININGS FOR CHANNEL BOTTOMS AND FOR SIDE

Legend and Notes

Uniform flow - straight or mildly curving reach

FIG. 7 PROTECTIVE LININGS FOR SIDE SLOPES EQUAL TO OR

Post-construction maintenance of dumped stone linings can be accomplished relatively easily by

FIG. 19 INSTALLATION OF EROSION CONTROL MAT FOR

FIG. 21 STONE FILLING (HEAVY) INSTALLED AS TOE PROTECTION

FIG. 23 FAILURE OF PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE CHANNEL

5.3.4 Dry rip-rap and bagged concrete

FIG. 25 CONCRETE RIP-RAP IN BAGS

FIG. 27 GABION WALL CONSTRUCTION

5.3.7 Soil cement

5.3.8 Closed pipe drains

FIG. 29 FABRIFORM LINING (SILVER LAKE, MINNESOTA)

5.5 Protection against wave action

6.1 Need for protection

6.2 Design of dumped stone protective aprons

Stone Lining Thickness

6.3 Other types of protection

7.1 The need for filter or bedding layers

7.3 Geotextile bedding

1. Hydraulic Engineering Circular No. 6, Design of Roadside Drainage Channels, U. S.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen